mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

“A Partisan Morass”: Crippling The Right To Organize

Unless something changes in Washington, American workers will, on New Year’s Day, effectively lose their right to be represented by a union. Two of the five seats on the National Labor Relations Board, which protects collective bargaining, are vacant, and on Dec. 31, the term of Craig Becker, a labor lawyer whom President Obama named to the board last year through a recess appointment, will expire. Without a quorum, the Supreme Court ruled last year, the board cannot decide cases.

What would this mean?

Workers illegally fired for union organizing won’t be reinstated with back pay. Employers will be able to get away with interfering with union elections. Perhaps most important, employers won’t have to recognize unions despite a majority vote by workers. Without the board to enforce labor law, most companies will not voluntarily deal with unions.

If this nightmare comes to pass, it will represent the culmination of three decades of Republican resistance to the board — an unwillingness to recognize the fundamental right of workers to band together, if they wish, to seek better pay and working conditions. But Mr. Obama is also partly to blame; in trying to install partisan stalwarts on the board, as his predecessors did, he is all but guaranteeing that the impasse will continue. On Wednesday, he announced his intention to nominate two pro-union lawyers to the board, though there is no realistic chance that either can gain Senate confirmation anytime soon.

For decades after its creation in 1935, the board was a relatively fair arbiter between labor and capital. It has protected workers’ right to organize by, among other things, overseeing elections that decide on union representation. Employers may not engage in unfair labor practices, like intimidating organizers and discriminating against union members. Unions are prohibited, too, from doing things like improperly pressuring workers to join.

The system began to run into trouble in the 1970s. Employers found loopholes that enabled them to delay the board’s administrative proceedings, sometimes for years. Reforms intended to speed up the board’s resolution of disputes have repeatedly foundered in Congress.

The precipitous decline of organized labor — principally a result of economic forces, not legal ones — cemented unions’ dependence on the board, despite its imperfections. Meanwhile, business interests, represented by an increasingly conservative Republican Party, became more assertive in fighting unions.

The board became dysfunctional. Traditionally, members were career civil servants or distinguished lawyers and academics from across the country. But starting in the Reagan era, the board’s composition began to tilt toward Washington insiders like former Congressional staff members and former lobbyists.

Starting with a compromise that allowed my confirmation in 1994, the board’s members and general counsel have been nominated in groups. In contrast to the old system, the new “batching” meant that nominees were named as a package acceptable to both parties. As a result, the board came to be filled with rigid ideologues. Some didn’t even have a background in labor law.

Under President George W. Bush, the board all but stopped using its discretion to obtain court orders against employers before the board’s own, convoluted, administrative process was completed — a power that, used fairly, is a crucial protection for workers. In 2007, in what has been called the September Massacre, the board issued rulings that made it easier for employers to block union organizing and harder for illegally fired employees to collect back pay. Democratic senators then blocked Mr. Bush from making recess appointments to the board, as President Bill Clinton had done. For 27 months, until March 2010, the board operated with only two members; in June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that it needed at least three to issue decisions.

Under Mr. Obama, the board has begun to take enforcement more seriously, by pursuing the court orders that the board under Mr. Bush had abandoned. Sadly, though, the board has also been plagued by unnecessary controversy. In April, the acting general counsel issued a complaint over Boeing’s decision to build airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina, following a dispute with Boeing machinists in Washington State. Although the complaint was dropped last week after the machinists reached a new contract agreement with Boeing, the controversy reignited Republican threats to cut financing for the board.

In my view, the complaint against Boeing was legally flawed, but the threats to cut the board’s budget represent unacceptable political interference. The shenanigans continue: last month, before the board tentatively approved new proposals that would expedite unionization elections, the sole Republican member threatened to resign, which would have again deprived the board of a quorum.

Mr. Obama needs to make this an election-year issue; if the board goes dark in January, he should draw attention to Congressional obstructionism during the campaign and defend the board’s role in protecting employees and employers. A new vision for labor-management cooperation must include not only a more powerful board, but also a less partisan one, with members who are independent and neutral experts. Otherwise, the partisan morass will continue, and American workers will suffer.

 

By: William B. Gould, Op_Ed Columnist, The New York Times, December 16, 2011

December 18, 2011 Posted by | Collective Bargaining, Election 2012 | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Scott Walker’s Next Target: Cancer Screenings For Women

First he gutted worker’s rights, then slashed state education funding and dumbed-down sex ed. Next on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s hit list? Breast and cervical cancer screenings for women. Come January 1, Wisconsinites who rely on Planned Parenthood to access free cancer screenings may be out of luck.

The Wisconsin Well Woman Program is an 17-year-old state service created to ensure that women ages 45 to 64 who lack health insurance can access preventive health screenings. It is administered by the Department of Health Services and provides referrals and screenings for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and multiple sclerosis at no cost. The state currently uses a number of contractors to coordinate and provide those services, including Planned Parenthood. But now, in a move that could leave many women in the state without access to the program, the Walker government is ending Planned Parenthood’s contract.

In four Wisconsin counties, Planned Parenthood is the only health care provider currently contracted as a coordinator for the cancer screenings. Coordinators evaluate women for eligibility, enroll them in the program, and then connect them to health care providers that can perform the exams. The coordinators also do community outreach, letting women know that there are options for preventative care even if they don’t have health insurance. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin has been a contractor since the program began—including during the terms of previous GOP governors Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum—but the group recently learned that its contract is being terminated at the end of the month.

Beth Kaplan, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health Services, told Mother Jones that no decision has been made on the contract and would not comment on why it might not be continued. But Tanya Atkinson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, says they were told that the state is cutting them out of the program. “They have very clearly stated that they were ending the contract with us,” she says. [UPDATE: Walker himself has confirmed that the state is ending its contract with Planned Parenthood.]

Atkinson says the DHS cut is politically motivated; as far as she knows, her group was the only service provider whose contract was not renewed. The move puts in question what will happen to the more than 1,000 women that access the Well Woman Program through Planned Parenthood in Winnebago, Fond du Lac, Sheboygan, and Outagamie counties every year. Doctors found 15 cases of cervical and breast cancer in the 1,260 women screened in those counties in 2010—cases that likely would not have been detected if women didn’t have access to the Well Woman Program. The county health officers in two of those counties have already issued statements decrying the state for targeting Planned Parenthood for the cut and for risking the health of their residents.

“If it’s not Planned Parenthood, then who’s going to coordinate? Where do women go?” Atkinson asks. “We don’t have any indication at this point.”

If Walker goes through with the cut, women like Laurie Seim might not get the services they need. Two years ago, the 52-year-old Seim discovered a lump in her breast and started feeling feverish and sick. Even though she had a part-time job as a medical assistant, she didn’t have health insurance and had never had a mammogram. The doctor she worked for sent her to the Well Woman Program coordinator at the Outagamie office of Planned Parenthood. She was able to get a mammogram the next day as well as an ultrasound, and both were covered by the program. Thankfully, she learned she had a cyst, not cancer. But without the program, she says, she probably wouldn’t have gotten that care.

“I didn’t have to worry about anything. It was such a godsend,” Seim says. “If I hadn’t been referred to that program, I don’t know what I would have done.” She worked in the medical field but still didn’t know how to navigate the system. “Well Woman was there for me.”

Planned Parenthood also provides some of the health screenings covered under Well Woman at other clinics around the state, including colposcopy, which is used to evaluate a women’s cervical health if she has an irregular pap smear result. But another bill that has been proposed in the Wisconsin State Senate would bar Planned Parenthood from providing those services, too. Senate Bill 331, sponsored by Republicans Mary Lazich, Glenn Grothman, and Pam Galloway, would block Planned Parenthood and any other health centers that also offer abortion services from being reimbursed for screenings through the Well Woman Program.

This isn’t the first time Walker and his allies in the Legislature have targeted Planned Parenthood. In June, Walker approved a budget that blocked state and federal funds from going to the group and any of its 27 health centers around the state. The clinics provide care to 73,000 women annually. And although there are already rules barring public funding from going to abortion services, Republicans in the state have gone after any and all money that goes to Planned Parenthood—even if it’s for services like cancer screenings.

“They’re willing to put their political ideology before women’s lives,” Atkinson says. “That’s really what’s happening here.”

December 17, 2011 Posted by | Women's Health | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Economic Freedom”: Capitalism By Any Other Name

I’ve been thinking about the term “capitalism” since Frank Luntz, the renowned pollster, told Republicans to quit saying it. The Occupy Wall Street movement has turned “capitalism” into a dirty word, he said. If Republicans want to win in 2012, they’d better stop worrying and learn to love “economic freedom” instead.

It’s a stunning turning of the tide. No matter the kind of conservative—Southern, evangelical, libertarian, Tea Party, or old-school Rockefeller patrician—conservatives have never hidden their allegiance to the moneyed class and power elite. I have never in my lifetime seen a conservative counsel against expressing one of the major tenets of conservative ideology. You might as well advise the GOP to stop trying to repeal the New Deal and start defending labor rights.

I’ve been thinking about this rhetorical shift while riding the bus in New Haven every day. The passengers are typically at the bottom of the 99 percent. Some are destitute; some are unemployable. Most are working poor, people with full-time minimum-wage jobs who cannot rise above poverty. I wonder what they’d think of John Mackey’s definition of “economic freedom.” The CEO of Whole Foods wrote in The Wall Street Journal in November that the phrase means “property rights, freedom to trade internationally, minimal governmental regulation … sound money, relatively low taxes, the rule of law, entrepreneurship, freedom to fail, and voluntary exchange.” My guess is they’d think very little of it.

Mackey’s definition is meaningful only if you already have money. Real money. Money you don’t have to spend right away, money that can sit around for a while. But when you don’t have real money, it has nothing to do with “economic freedom.” If Mackey were defining “capitalism,” that would be one thing. The working person might have nothing to say to that. The abstract nature of “economic freedom,” though, invites interpretation, and, for the working person, it has everything to do with making a living.

Though “economic freedom” is now synonymous with capital, it used to be synonymous with labor. It makes sense. Government isn’t the largest force in our lives. Corporations are. They dictate when to work, where and how. Or none of the above if you’ve been laid off. They don’t want to pay for full-time work, health care, or pensions. During their golden age, unions were seen as a step toward greater security, which was a step toward greater freedom. If you, as an individual, didn’t have to worry about bargaining for wages, retirement, or life insurance (because your labor posed actual physical risk), you were freed of that burden. In other words, economic freedom wasn’t freedom from the rule of government; it was freedom from the rule of corporations.

More profoundly, labor’s “economic freedom” is in keeping with the grandest narratives of American history, with colonists fighting the British colonizers, slaves fleeing their masters, women struggling for the right to vote, African Americans appealing for their inalienable rights. In each of these, a David battles a Goliath—and the underdog wins. Only in America. Where is the moral thrust of capital’s “economic freedom” narrative? Making more money? Nah.

Some have warned that Luntz is setting a trap. The temptation among progressives has been to talk even more about capitalism since Luntz is “frightened to death” by the Occupy movement. If they do, critics say, Republicans will be able to portray progressives as socialists. No doubt they will, but not because the Occupiers are focused on capitalism. Conservatives are willing to cry socialist anytime something irritates business. It doesn’t take raising a country’s collective consciousness to the dangers of corrupt capitalism to draw rhetorical fire like that.

Talking about capitalism in America is somewhat like talking about class. As a social reality, it’s so familiar as to be invisible, which is convenient for those, like the moneyed class and power elite, who don’t want to talk about it. But once you start talking about an invisible force that can affect anyone, you start wondering why it doesn’t benefit everyone. That, to me, is what the Occupy movement needs to keep doing: pointing out what should be obvious to all of us.

An enormous propaganda machine paid for by capital has made it necessary for thousands of people to march in the streets and camp in public parks to make what should be truly unremarkable observations: Rich people don’t always deserve their riches, and people who work hard often can’t make ends meet. This is about capitalism, because this is about the nature of work—and the enormous constraints faced by Americans employed or not. So, no matter what kind of rhetorical hocus-pocus Republicans come up with next year, no matter what they call capitalism, the elephant is still in the room. There’s no replacing plainspoken truths.

 

By: John Stoehr, The American Prospect, December 16, 2011

December 17, 2011 Posted by | Class Warfare, Corporations | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Has Gingrich Ever Heard An Idea He Didn’t Like?

Can we please bury the notion that Newt Gingrich is some kind of deep thinker? His intellect may be as broad as the sea, but it’s about as deep as a birdbath.

I’m not saying the Republican presidential front-runner is unacquainted with ideas. Quite the contrary: Ideas rain through his brain like confetti, escaping at random as definitive pronouncements about this or that. But they are other people’s ideas, and Gingrich doesn’t bother to curate them into anything resembling a consistent philosophy. Given enough time, I’m convinced, he will take every position on every issue.

The week’s most vivid example of Gingrich’s intellectual promiscuity sent principled conservatives into apoplexy. Mitt Romney, his chief opponent for the GOP nomination, had called on Gingrich to return the $1.6 million in consulting fees he received from housing giant Freddie Mac. Gingrich replied that he would “be glad to listen” if Romney would first “give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees” during his time as head of the investment firm Bain Capital.

If this were a column about Gingrich’s hypocrisy, the point would be that he has been scorchingly critical of Freddie Mac while accepting tons of the firm’s money. But this is about his shallowness — and the fact that, in blasting Romney, he adopted the ideas and rhetoric of Occupy Wall Street.

Republicans are supposed to believe that “bankrupting companies and laying off employees” is something to celebrate, not bemoan, because this is seen as the way capitalism works. Even in the heat of a campaign, no one who has thought deeply about economics and adopted the conservative viewpoint — which Gingrich wants us to believe he has done — could possibly commit such heresy.

Gingrich doesn’t just borrow ideas from the protesters he once advised to “get a job, right after you take a bath.” He’s as indiscriminate as a vacuum cleaner, except for a bias toward the highfalutin and trendy.

Take his solution for making the federal government so efficient that we could save $500 billion a year: a management system called Lean Six Sigma. There’s no way Gingrich could resist such a shiny bauble of jargon. Why, the name even includes a letter of the Greek alphabet — the sort of erudite touch that a distinguished professor of history, such as Gingrich, could not fail to appreciate.

I won’t argue with the corporate executives who say that Lean Six Sigma works wonders for their firms. But is a technique developed by Motorola to reduce the number of defects in its electronic gear really applicable to government? There’s no reason to think it would be, unless you somehow restructured government to introduce competition and a genuine, not simulated, profit motive. I guess Professor Gingrich will get back to us on that; at the moment, he’s too busy playing with his new piece of management-speak.

Another example is Gingrich’s bizarre claim last year that “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior” was the key to understanding President Obama. Aside from being one of the stranger, least comprehensible utterances by a prominent U.S. politician in recent memory — and that’s saying something — it was also completely unoriginal. Gingrich was citing and endorsing a hallucinatory piece in Forbes by Dinesh D’Souza. It was merely the idea du jour.

Gingrich finds it hard to watch an intellectual fad pass by without becoming infatuated. Do you remember Second Life, the digital realm? In 2007, he told us it was “an example of how we can rethink learning” and potentially “one of the great breakthroughs of the next 10 years.” I know Second Life still exists, but have you heard a lot about it recently? Has it changed your world?

Gingrich didn’t originate the idea of solving the health insurance problem through an individual mandate, but he supported it — before bitterly opposing it. Nor was he saying anything new last week when he made the offensive claim that Palestinians are an “invented people.” His xenophobic views about the alleged threat to the United States from Islam and sharia law conflict with earlier statements praising immigration and the melting pot as great American strengths. But for Gingrich, the word contradiction has no meaning.

Gingrich’s debating technique is dogmatic insistence, rather than persuasion. His discourse knows no past and no future, just the glib opportunism of now.

 

By: Eugene Robinson, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, December 16, 2011

December 17, 2011 Posted by | Election 2012 | , , , , , | Leave a comment

“A Heart Two Sizes Too Small”: Pretending I Am A Republican

Ok, I thought it would be fun to pretend that I am a  Republican. Cut me some slack here. I know what some of you are thinking…this is  some mean trick.

No, really, I am trying to figure out what I would do if I  were  running for president as a Republican.  And I understand the problem  with going “mainstream” now, as everyone is  fighting for the most  conservative, extreme wing of the party.

But here are 5 things I would suggest:

Middle Class: First and foremost, I would try and  figure  out how to fight for the middle class. I  would not be talking  about stopping a $1,500 tax break for working families,  while suggesting  another drop in the upper income tax bracket from 35 percent  to 28  percent, even after the Bush temporary tax cut from 39 percent to 35   percent. The Republicans are doing  everything in their power to pay for  the tax break for the middle class in some  fashion but do not seem to  care much about paying for the Bush tax cuts for  millionaires and  billionaires. This is  hurting them badly politically and they need to  support tax breaks for those  who are suffering. So, I would be  talking  about the middle class by suggesting help for college and trade school,   help with job training, incentives for hiring and expanding, and  providing tax  breaks for start-ups.

Tolerance: I would try and take on others (including  the  opponents) for gratuitous slams at gays, Hispanics, blacks, women, and  Arab  Americans. I would openly criticize an  audience that boos a gay  soldier fighting for his country, a candidate who  talks about “Obama’s  war on religion” while blasting gays in the military, and  others who  believe a state initiative on Shariah law is smart politics. Americans  are moving fast towards tolerance and  acceptance of those who are  different from them—embrace it, don’t fan the  flames of  intolerance.

Role of Government: Republicans will, for the time  being, blast  government but they should say what they are for. How  about acknowledging that the Securities  and Exchange Commission should  have had more teeth and been more vigilant in  going after the Madoffs  and Stanfords of the world?  Now is not the time to let the financial   system run amok; rather we should be tougher in protecting the “little  guy”,  the consumer, the investor, the depositor.  Why not combine a  concern for over-regulation of small businesses with a  tighter grip on  those who have abused the system?

Foreign Policy: This is one area where Republicans  should zip  it. If I were running I would give Obama  his due on the war  on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan, praise Secretary of State Hillary   Clinton and pivot to domestic issues.  Talk expanding trade, cutting  good deals, competing with the Chinese and  leave it at that—but don’t  accuse Obama of being “weak.” Doesn’t work.  Creating more jobs in the  international economy is a much better message.

National Service: Sounds like a side issue, but I  would call  for all Americans to give back to their country. Everyone  between 18-25 should serve in some  capacity for two years, in the  military, in the Peace Corps, Teach for America,  in their local  communities. The reward:  help with their education, paying off student  loans, assistance with grad school—a  new GI Bill if you will—but   ultimately, good deeds are their own reward.  We would change the ethic  in this country that you can have your cake  and eat it too, that your  government owes you, that there is no need to  contribute your talents,  hard work, resources, to others.

So, I guess if I turned into a Republican, I wouldn’t be  very  popular in the current crowd, would I?   But my strong belief is that a  Republican who adopted these five ideas  might just stand a better  chance of being elected next November. Yes, this is Christmas and a time  of miracles  but maybe, just maybe there are some Republicans out there  who agree.

 

By: Peter Fenn, U. S. News and World Report, December 16, 2011

December 16, 2011 Posted by | Election 2012, Government | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »